What Do You Think About Celebrity Adoption?
I’m really interested what others think about this celebrity adoption trend. Starts are adopting from different countries and cultures, and almost non of the children will learn anything about their origins and traditions. Of course, in some cases they will, e.g. the Jolie-Pitts celebrate every important occasions /they have adopted babies from Cambodia, Vietnam and Ethiopia if I know well/ of the countries they adopted from. I think they do it right. I’m personally not against this celebrity adoption, as rich and famous give a better life to these orphans. Now, what are your thoughts?
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:54 PM
I like that kids who would otherwise remain in the orphanages are being given a pretty much carefree life and all that. What I don’t like is when celebrities are clearly doing it to look good or for the attention. Take Madonna, for example. The child she wanted to adopt had a father, and there were custody battles over whether she could adopt the kid or whether the father had rights. She should have just let it go and found a true orphan, maybe donated money to the father of the other child if she really cared that much, so that he could provide for his kid.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Celebrities are just people and much like most everyone else, they would like a family. I don’t see anything different between my adoption of my daughter from China and Meg Ryan’s. I think as long as they are adopting because ultimately they wish to be parents and educate themselves on adoption loss as well as learn and celebrate their child’s culture and embrace openness, then I would be just as supportive of them as everyone in my life has been to me.
However, what does bother me is when certain celebrities, a la Madonna, circumvent the laws of their adopted child’s home country, simply because they are rich and famous.
The rules should be the same for everyone.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:06 AM
I think it is great that celebrities are adopting children who need loving homes. I like that they recognize children in need and recognize that they can contribute to making a child’s life better.
However, there are lots of wonderful families who have adopted children from around the world and in the U.S, not just celebrities. Unfortunately, they just get more recognition.
I dislike when celebrities have to constantly brag upon themselves about how they have adopted children or appear to have only done it for the show. Also, once adopted, I am greatly annoyed when they refer to their adopted child as “the adopted child”. Why not just their son or daughter??
February 24th, 2010 at 3:51 AM
I say that as long as they have to go through the same procedures as the rest of the population, go for it.
Being raised by nannies is better than caregivers in an orphanage. Non adopted children of stars are raised by nannies too. Doesn’t make it right just equal.
When stars give birth there is a media circus around the child as well. If them adopting from a foreign country highlights the plight of the orphans overseas, great. Many people will be enlightened and will help them.
Cases like Madonna’s hurt adoption worldwide, she should have let the father retain custody and adopted a true orphan
February 24th, 2010 at 6:10 AM
Despite their lives being a media circus, children adopted by celebrities (except maybe Christina Crawford) have far better lives than they would otherwise. For whatever reasoning these actresses and other celebrities have for adopting, I’m sure the kids are a lot better growing up in Brentwood than they would be on the streets of Phnom Penh.
February 24th, 2010 at 7:21 AM
Well maybe it’s good that they give the kids a home actually more than home the kids live with millioners they can have anything they want but i personally think that they do it just for the press.They already spend money on cars and dresses and houses that they don’t need so their fans need to think that they are doing something good.So i think that it’s just a press thing. But if they gave the poor kids the 6 million dollars they gave for some house that they don’t need they would help so much more than just adopting a child. That’s what i think….
February 24th, 2010 at 12:00 PM
I think it is good that they are sharing their wealth with someone less fortunate but my main concern is what about the children right here in the US that are homeless, in shelters, starving, has no one to turn too. Why should they stay their entire lives in a foster home or shelter because someone is unwilling to adopt them. If I were more financially secure I would try to do my best in helping out the children here first than anywhere else.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:42 PM
Its a bit of a disgrace and sad that those kids are being raised by nannies. Too many people over look this because of materialism.
February 24th, 2010 at 4:48 PM
I think it’s little more than a pathetic attempt to look important and to feed their narcissism.
February 24th, 2010 at 9:59 PM
For obvious reasons EVERY THING a celebrity does is scrutnised and disected. Many people speak with awe and some with jealousy about what comes easily to them. Some look at them as humans. I look at them as humans first for whom money and fame has opened lots of doors !!
Call me naive but i don’t look at “evil” motive behind most “normal” things people do..
Saying that i do believe the celebrities(most) have the heart in the right place when they set out to adopt. Its their dream to provide loving family that will share their life , money and status with them.
I personally find it disgusting when people scorn them and use terms like celebrity “buy” babies or they are picking children up like trophies etc.
Unless they have done something particular to show they are not loving these children they adopted i would be glad they followed their dreams and adopted.
P.S- Banned from answering a similar question from another user yesterday, i would like to add here “NO !! I don’t feel jealous that it was easy for them to adopt”. I am happy to have gone through regular channnels for our child’s adoption. But i am happy for them if things came easily. As long as the end result was ethical.
February 25th, 2010 at 2:46 AM
But what is a “better life”?
Money? Stuff? Being raised by nannies while mummy is out filming on location 11 months of the year? Is that really a “better life”?
Keep in mind that a lot of these “orphans” are not truly orphans at all. We all learned that with the Madonna debacle. In these impoverished countries, sometimes a widowed parent has no choice but to place their child into an orphanage temporarily so that the child can survive. They need somebody to feed and look after the child while the parent goes out and works. They don’t live like we do…daddy doesn’t get into his Toyota Camry in the morning and come home from the office at 5. For them, it is a LONG day of HARD labor, and without these orphanages to look after the children, their children would die. When the kids are old enough, they take them back. It’s simple survival for them, it’s life.
What is Madonna’s little boy going to think when he grows older and can comprehend fully what happened to him and his family? When he finds out that his father didn’t want him to be adopted? Will he think that nannies and Wii’s and toys and fancy cars were a fair tradeoff for his family, his culture, his language, the way of life he was born to?
I don’t know, but time will tell.
Time will tell.